[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "License: Perl" considered harmful [Was: "Python" license]

Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
> The problem is, as I said, the terms of the Python license are very
> specific to Python. Not in the way that, say, the LPPL is specific to
> LaTeX, but that the terms of the license specifically identify the PSF,
> and Python. It's like applying a BSD license and leaving "The Regents of
> the University of California" in there when you're not the Regents. Or
> is that okay? It doesn't seem to me like it should be.

I feel you are missing the difference between
  licensed under the same terms as Python
  licensed under the Python license

To me, the former may be acceptable, if we can make a reasonable
substitution and deduce which versions of the licence can be
used, while the latter is not, because it probably contains
lies and irrelevances if applied to other software.

The title of http://people.debian.org/~piman/real-license.html
describes a problem, but the document then argues against
something different. Showing your document to an upstream author
at present will probably rightly get "go away, kid" from
authors who notice the exaggeration and over-generalisation.

I suggest:
 1. drop the irrelevant C example;
 2. argue against "under the otherthing licence" instead of
   "under the same terms as otherthing";
 3. comment about possible confusions;
 4. suggest non-confusing clarifications;
 5. weaken the BSD/ GPL/ MIT/X advocacy - BSD and Artistic
   aren't "basically the same terms" IMO.

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: